> Of course, I hope its only on the bad Tor like CP or drugs I must say that I am uncomfortable with the sweeping, unqualified, blanket condemnation that is "the bad Tor like CP or drugs". (And I would be rather surprised if I were to be the only here who feels this way.) Let me be clear: I would not dispute the characterization of at least much and likely even most of what would fall under your categorization as vile, repugnant, reprehensible and reprobate. I think that anyone with the most minimal level of conscience and decency would have to agree with that much. I am afraid, however, that the matter is not as simple and black and white as your statement would imply.
Perhaps I would best first point-out that laws vary, sometimes wildly, by jurisdiction. A given substance or activity can be legal in one jurisdiction while being illegal in another. Moreover, and perhaps more fundamental and germane here, is the question of whether morality, ethics, reason and societal good always align with the Law and the ways in which it may be enforced. I would argue that in /many/, perhaps even /most/ cases, the aforementioned values do, to varying degrees, align with the Law. But certainly not in all /cases/. In the case of drugs, perhaps it will suffice for now to cite the following. Last I heard, there were people suffering miserably, in many cases from /terminal/ conditions, who insist that the only drug that brings them any real relief is one that (at least in their jurisdiction) either (a) does not enjoy the blessings of the Law at all or (b) has restrictions that legally prevent said sufferer from obtaining the dose that is necessary to bring him relief (or at least sufficient, consistent, sustained relief). (In the case of a /terminal/ patient experiencing excruciating pain, does it make sense for concern over addiction to be a priority?) While I am not able to cite any actual data here, I would suspect that such cases account for at least some percentage of the commerce in illicit drugs that is carried-out under the cover of Tor. As for "CP" (i.e., "Child Pornography"), it is with trepidation that I even step into what is understandably such a fraught topic. But it cannot be avoided. For I am convinced that the hysteria that surrounds and informs this area not only results in any number of instances of injustice but also, in many cases at least, does nothing and sometimes /worse-than-nothing/ to actually protect vulnerable children and adolescents. Perhaps the first thing to be pointed-out here is just how /extremely/ broad and often patently subjective, arbitrary and capricious the category known as "CP" is. In many cases, an image that was /produced/ legally can be deemed illegal to /possess/, /distribute/ or /publish/ based on what amounts-to the criminalization of mere /thought/. Take the example of a photo of a child modeling a swimsuit or even /any/ article of clothing. If done for the purpose of advertising the item being modeled, such an image could be perfectly legal to produce. And, if also done for the same advertising purpose, perfectly legal to publish as well. But the very same image-- one that was produced legally-- if published or even merely /possessed/ in a context in which it could be argued that the purpose was its usage "for sexual gratification", could be legally actionable. This, even in the absence of any credible evidence that the possessor, publisher or distributor (a) ever /acted-upon/ such /feelings/ with any actual child or adolescent or (b) presents any threat of doing so. Basically, one can be prosecuted and jailed merely for the charge of having committed the victimless "crime" of deriving "sexual gratification" from the mere /viewing/ of an /image/, an /inanimate object/. Likewise, with regard to non-sexual child or adolescent nudity. In both cases, a determination and judgment of an individual's mere /thoughts/ can determine whether or not he will be prosecuted for the mere possession, publication or distribution of an image that was /produced legally/ by a completely unrelated third-party. (And obviously, I am not talking here about any mere question of copyright violation.) Then there is the case of DRAWN, cartoon-style images of what are clearly FICTIONAL characters. These (and in some cases, at least, even mere WRITTEN works of what is clearly complete FICTION and FANTASY), in many jurisdictions, fall, to varying degrees, under the legal rubric of "CP". (Including in many nations that pride themselves on being secular, liberal democracies.) Regarding any of the types of material or usages of said material that I have cited above, remember that the question here is not what you, or I or anyone else may think of them, per se*. Rather, the questions are (a) whether said materials and usages of said materials should be /criminalized/ in the way that they presently are in many jurisdictions, and, (b) whether the use of a technology such as Tor to circumvent said restrictions can, summarily and without qualification, reasonably and legitimately be branded "bad". I suspect that many, if not most, here would agree, at least in considerable measure, with at least much of what I have written thus far. Perhaps some would argue that at least some of the cases I raised involve gray areas, in which there is room for reasonable and decent people to disagree. But what about all those images and videos that depict what no one of any conscience and decency could possibly argue as being anything less than the patent abuse and exploitation of children and adolescents? I would certainly agree with that characterization for at least /much/ of the material that falls under the rubric of "CP". Perhaps most or even a solid and maybe even /overwhelming/ majority of it. The question, however, is whether the prevailing legal framework and approach, under which the mere /possession/ and /viewing/ of mere /images/ of the aforesaid heinous acts is (a) the most effective and efficient means of preventing said acts (or even reasonably effective, on balance, at doing so) and (b) just and justified. Compelling arguments have been presented that it is neither. Perhaps the most compelling of these that I have seen made goes as follows. The images in question provide what often may be the strongest evidence of the crimes that they depict. To criminalize the mere /possession/ and even /viewing/ of such images effectively encourages them to be hidden, at the very least, and, in many cases, destroyed. And that, in turn, obviously makes it more difficult to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the actual crimes in which minors were harmed. (And thereby prevent said predators from being able to continue to prey upon innocent victims.) If that argument is valid, then would there not logically follow a corresponding argument as follows: That Tor, to the extent that it facilitates and aids in the distribution and publicizing of the aforesaid evidence of crimes, is actually doing a /service/ to society in doing so? NOTE: *That said, I must point-out that the drawn and written fiction in question spans quite a broad range itself. To be sure much, perhaps even most of it is without question quite vile, disgusting and disturbing. Certainly, included in this category would be anything that celebrates, glorifies, whitewashes or merely suggests approval of any type of violence, coercion or incest. But there is also at least some (both drawn as well written material) that is far from such depravity and filth and, at least relatively and in its own right, would seem rather innocuous. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
